Talk:Melora (episode)
FA Nomination (May 24, 2011 - Successful) Take two. --| TrekFan Open a channel 09:28, May 13, 2011 (UTC) * Support - This is an excellent article. The background information is comprehensive, well-written, and properly cited. It's also well-illustrated, which is always a plus.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 09:57, May 14, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. - 10:00, May 14, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. - I like the balance between the main article and bginfo and I can appreciate the use of multiple sources for the bginfo - Sennim 10:10, May 14, 2011 (UTC) *'Support': I reckon there could be some more clarification in the summary (for example, a scene that contains two female characters currently refers to both as "she", etc., without referring to them more distinctly), but – other than that – this is a good effort. --Defiant 10:46, May 14, 2011 (UTC) *'Support'. - Well written and researched. Tom 18:06, May 17, 2011 (UTC) With five votes, nomination is considered sucessful and archived. --| TrekFan Open a channel 10:41, May 24, 2011 (UTC) Removed The following was removed as per Ten Forward discussion in which it was decided that nitpicks were not acceptable on MA. --From Andoria with Love 20:17, 5 September 2006 (UTC) :It's unclear how a low-gravity planet could sustain a nitrogen/oxygen atmosphere. Planets with low gravity typically have thin or non-existant atmospheres, yet Melora seems to breathe the same air as other species on DS9. Furthemore, Melora's room on DS9 seems to be set to zero gravity, which clearly would be impossible on any planet of significant mass. ---- :Um, the Ten Forward discussion talks about bloopers and such and production errors, this text is a legitimate scientific point. ::It also talks about nitpicks. Legitimate science or not, this was a nitpick, and Shran was right to remove it. --OuroborosCobra talk 18:57, 7 September 2006 (UTC) :The Ten Forward discussion which I just read talked about putting things like this in "Production Errors," so move it there if you want, but it's not an error, it's an observation of the implication of the events in the episode. This wasn't a production error (i.e. costume errors, set errors, etc.), this was a nitpick as it criticizes an aspect of the episode's writing, hence why it was removed. I don't really see how it can be added to the article... while I personally find pointing out scientific errors to be interesting and informative, this is science fiction, so there are bound to be mistakes in nearly every hour of Trek, so there's really no need to draw attention to every single one of them. So pointing out such errors are, in essence, nitpicking. --From Andoria with Love 20:21, 7 September 2006 (UTC) :I strongly disagree. This is a potential implication of the episode on the nature of this low gravity planet. I came to Memory Alpha having seen the episode recently precisely to see if anyone else had thought about this or noted it. And the Ten Forward discussion seems to have reached no consensus on "nitpicking" if that is what you want to call this. The language was certainly drafted in a neutral and non-nitpicking way, so I'm surprised at the resistance to this text. However, if it must be deemed a nitpick, perhaps it could moved to the article on Elyasians with less consternation. I also have no interest in pointing out every single error... but the entire premise of this episode is a species from a low gravity planet and the implications of that seem interesting to me. Hmm... good points. Well, since it is a major focal point of the story, it might be worth keeping... after all, we have similar notes at Ceti Alpha V. Eh, I dunno, maybe it can be added. Let's see what some others have to say (goes off to get others involved in the conversation...) --From Andoria with Love 20:42, 7 September 2006 (UTC) :::Hi unknown contributor (BTW, could you please sign your comments, and eventually even create an account? Would be much easier to discuss that way. Thanks.). :::In past discussions we decided that, with Memory Alpha being an "in-universe" encyclopedia first and foremost, it would be much better to have such commentary be located at a relevant article instead of simply as a "nitpick" of a specific episode. This means that Shran correctly removed that comment from this episode article. However, you raised a good point, that could in some form be placed on one of our articles. Relevant articles might be Melora Pazlar or Elaysian homeworld (if we can be sure that it really is this planet that has a low gravity). However, the note should probably be stated in a way that doesn't outright claim that it was an "error" - I can think of many possible explanations for this, and a background note should inform about this without being a nitpick. -- Cid Highwind 21:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Hello again. New to the wiki world, I've figured out the signing thing now I think, and registered. My second draft included a possible explanation that perhaps they live in a sealed environment on a low gravity planet, for example. At some point perhaps that text can be moved to Elaysian Homeworld. PrognosisNegative 22:56, 7 September 2006 (UTC) Removed non BG info bullets I removed: :After Bashir and Pazlar leave the Klingon restaurant, two Pakleds step up to the counter. :Referenced Rules of Acquisition: #16 ("A deal is a deal") '' neither is BG info Joeloveland 19:44, November 2, 2009 (UTC) Conversation between Melora and Klingon Restauranteur What do Melora and the restauranteur say to each other, exactly? Does anybody have access to the script? A viewer can get the gist based on the body language, but students of Klingonese may want to practice. I've answered my own question, I believe. I've found this web site (http://www.angelfire.com/md/startrekkie1701/klindic.html) with an excellent transliteration and translation of the conversation between Melora and the chef. Happy Solar Sailing 06:51, December 7, 2010 (UTC) :Well, if you're still interested, you can read the script here, which includes the official translations.– Cleanse ( talk | ) 08:45, December 7, 2010 (UTC) Peer review I have spent several hours working on the summary, quotes and background information so I thought I'd request peer review to get some feedback. I'd appreciate any comments that would help to improve the article further. -- TrekFan Open a channel 12:44, February 13, 2011 (UTC) :Can we please take the time to finish one of your other peer reviews before starting several more? -- sulfur 12:47, February 13, 2011 (UTC) There isn't a rule against having more than one peer review at a time? I just want some feedback on what I have done. -- TrekFan Open a channel 13:01, February 13, 2011 (UTC) :There's no rule. But the idea of a peer review is to take the comments and apply them to the article. With three open simultaneously, that's starting to spread yourself pretty thin. :Regardless, the DS9 Companion references need page numbers. -- sulfur 13:02, February 13, 2011 (UTC) Well I have done some work on the Jonathan Archer PR but it seems to have stalled. I was considering archiving that one unless anyone objects. As for the two episode ones, well as you can see there are currently no comments there. When there are, I will respond accordingly. Don't you worry about me "stretching" myself, Sulfur. I'll manage, thanks! Furthermore, as for the DS9 Companion references, I didn't add them so if anyone with the actual book could add the page numbers, that would be swell! -- TrekFan Open a channel 13:09, February 13, 2011 (UTC) ::There are still several open points on the Archer PR (and I'm not even talking about the somewhat controversial ones). -- Cid Highwind 13:23, February 13, 2011 (UTC) :::Back on topic, the page numbers have now been added, along with a few more notes from the ''Companion.–Cleanse ( talk | ) 01:27, February 14, 2011 (UTC) Nice one, Cleanse! This has some nice background info to it now. -- TrekFan Open a channel 12:39, February 14, 2011 (UTC) Background information from magazines Does anyone know of any nice snippets of background info in any of the official magazines? --| TrekFan Open a channel 16:54, March 11, 2011 (UTC) Website reception notes I have removed the following information for the time being, as per this discussion. :* As of March 2011: :**GEOS.tv users gave this episode an average rating of 6.7/10 based on 439 votes, ranking the episode twenty-third in the season and 166th of 175 episodes produced overall. :**TV.com users rated this episode 6.5/10 based on 150 votes. :**Ex Astris Scientia gave this episode a rating of 4/10. :**Jammer's Reviews.com gave this episode a 2-star "Mediocre" rating. If we decide it is valid, we can always re-add it at a later date. --| TrekFan Open a channel 22:00, April 16, 2011 (UTC)